home

Obama: Bill Clinton Will Campaign For Me

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:03:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

David Letterman reports:

Barack Obama revealed Wednesday that former President Clinton, once the presidential nominee's nemesis, will campaign for him during the weeks leading up to Election Day. "There's nobody smarter in politics," Obama said on CBS' "Late Show with David Letterman." "And he is going to be campaigning for us over the next eight weeks, which I'm thrilled by."

The two were scheduled to have lunch Thursday at Clinton's office in New York. Clinton spokesman Matt McKenna said the former president would campaign for Obama at a yet-to-be announced site in Florida on Sept. 29, with plans for more fundraising and events in the works.

If I were running Obama's campaign, I would have Obama campaign with Bill Clinton next week in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan for a few days.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Obama on Letterman | The Legacy Of 9/11 >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama: Bill Clinton Will Campaign For Me | 124 comments (124 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Anything to get the focus back where it should be (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by barryluda on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:44:43 AM EST
    On Obama's plan for America, on McCain's lack of a plan, and on the fact that we've had enough and can't afford another four years with a Republican in the White House.

    Precisely (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:49:05 AM EST


    Parent
    IS and SEEM are very different . (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:52:33 AM EST
    One is reality the other is defined by advertising, spin, etc.  Did you feel that way about Bush and Kerry? That's why we got into this mess to begin with.   You have just shown dailygrind's comment to be dead on.

    Parent
    "Is" and "seem" (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by hookfan on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:51:14 AM EST
    are very difficult to distinguish when you factor in the continuous capitulation of the Democratic congress to the bush agenda since 2006. What does the democratic party really want, as opposed to what they say they want, is imo very murky and I believe is a primary reason there is public ambivalence about Obama. If the democratic congress had fought this would be an easier election.

    Parent
    I agree with you 100% about (none / 0) (#153)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:16:36 PM EST
    the Congress.  

    Parent
    Chris Mathews (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by ChuckieTomato on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:08:55 AM EST
    uses that criteria too. Which candidate would you like to have a beer with, and which one will help you change a flat tire.

    Gee, that worked out well didn't it?

    Parent

    Obama (none / 0) (#134)
    by AlSmith on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:09:59 PM EST

    Obama wins the 'who would you have a beer with' (as long as he wont be smoking) contest. He seems like the nicest guy in this.

    Sarah Palin probably throw the best barbecue.

    However I dont intend on voting for either of these people.

    Parent

    Are you interested in smoke and mirrors (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by sallywally on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:11:43 AM EST
    or reality? Obama doesn't connect, but his policies are what we need. Palin and McCain sound like regular folks but they are not. They will ignore everyone but the top .01 percent of the population and the big corporations.

    Use your thinking skills. Obama is better for you, period.

    Parent

    "Obama doesn't connect"... (none / 0) (#107)
    by alexei on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:53:45 AM EST
    and that is the crux of his problem.

    Parent
    Even if Obama didn't implement (2.00 / 0) (#154)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:22:20 PM EST
    all the policies he's promising, aren't you more worried that McCain/Palin will continue the Bush policies?  

    Furthermore, why would you believe McCain/Palin more than Obama.  McCain has changed his positions more than Obama.  He even nominated an "agent of intolerance" as his VP.  And Palin may be running as a reformer - but a closer look at her record shows she is anything but.  Already McCain/Palin are stealing from the Bush playbook regarding her ethical problems in Alaska.  

    Parent

    Which Policies Did Bill Clinton Promise (2.00 / 0) (#158)
    by daring grace on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 04:48:31 PM EST
    during his campaign and not deliver on as president?

    And really, why limit this cynicism about campaign promises to Democrats and give McCain a pass as more 'authentic'?

    Really? The principled 'maverick' maverick who has an over 90% record of policy agreement with Bush-Cheney?

    Parent

    I agree, I sure do not want (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by KeysDan on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:06:08 PM EST
    any politician, let alone the president, to look down on me. However, I disagree with a criterion that relies, in whole or part, on what they order from the bartender.  Let's put policies and plans up, side-by-side, and see which one, in composite, favors the working people.  After all, even in 1932, not that many working people wore capes and placed  their cigarettes in a holder, but FDR proved to be a great friend of all Americans, but especially the middle class.

    Parent
    so...you must be in the 7 houses (none / 0) (#121)
    by coigue on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:53:51 AM EST
    married a rich woman who financed my career rise group. Or maybe your father was an admiral?

    Kudos to you.

    Me, I am just an average Jane from the middle class. I think it's great that Obama was able to overcome his fatherless childhood and make something of himself. For people like me, his story is the American dream realized, and I don't think it is snobbish or elitist for him to be proud of his accomplishments. Heck, I am proud that his story can happen in America.

    Parent

    Facts, please (none / 0) (#169)
    by Cream City on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 05:39:19 AM EST
    He did not have a fatherless childhood.  Putdown of step-parents there.  He had two years without his father, and then his mother remarried, and his stepfather adopted him.

    Obama had more years without his mother.  Was that a motherless childhood?  Not to hear him tell it, of course.  That he talks about his childhood as fatherless is, therefore, revealing.  But it's not factual.

    Parent

    policies, not feelings (none / 0) (#127)
    by noholib on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:59:13 AM EST
    Would you please look at the policies that the Democrats and Republicans advocate, and then figure out which policies help you more in your life?
    For example, equal pay for equal work, affordable health care for all, social security, not diverting all this country's wealth to the top 1%, combatting global warming with clean energy based on science--these are Democratic, not Republican policies.
    Senator Obama started his career as a community  organizer working with ordinary people, people who are not not the top 1% economically.  Republicans will do anything to keep the income distributed this way --NOW THAT'S REAL ELITISM IMO, they will do nothing to combat global warming, and they will do everything to prevent women from making their own serious choices about reproduction.  I could go on and on.  But please, get over this business about who you want as your friend or drinking buddy.  Look to your own friends and family for that, not to politicians.  They have a far more serious job to do than hang out with us.  Really, can't you see that the Republicans love to run elections on personality and make us forget the real issues--namely, that Republican policies of the Reagan and Bush administrations are have led to a more extreme concentration of wealth in this country than at any time since the Great Depression.  I really can't imagine how that makes you feel good or makes you want more of the same.  No to 8 more McCain-Palin Republican years.

    Parent
    I agree, but sadly we still live in a society, (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by dailygrind on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:12:39 AM EST
    now 8 years into the worst presidency in recent memory, that's still guided by personality. Voting is no longer a civic or democratic virtue- it's a vanity contest.

    I applaud Obama and the Clintons here. Yet many people are so concerned over personality they are  willing to go down the same rabbit hole  we have already went down for 30 years .

    On Bill Moyer, a former military man was making the point that I m about to make. The problem isn't John McCain or Barack Obama. The problem is us. That we don't demand a better conversation or accountability. That we don't take real responsibility for our democracy. So  yes, another 4 years can happen.

    Whether it's the people willing to buy the marketing campaign without substance about John "I'm a fake Maverick" McCain or demonize Obama. They would rather rip their nose off to spite their face.

    How do you persuade people who don't want to be persuaded?  We are on the edge of a cliff, and they keep acting like we got the time to be dancing around personality disputes and who did what or said what. You would think these people haven't read about the bail of the mortgage industries, people losing their homes, people loseing their jobs, people dying in Iraq, the spiraling cost of healthcare, the crazy cost of education or about the shrinking American dream. You would think they aren't living through it, but instead are reading about it from some other country.  I don't know how you change that.

    I do know that if they vote for McCain  the American people will be sending a message. That they don't believe in accountability because if they did there is no way they would give the GOP a third chance regardless of what they thougt of Obama. They would care about McCain's irresponsibility.

    People keep saying Obama must persuade. I agree with that. But I also realize at the end of the day you can only persuade people open to persuasion. In this election, I have to be honest, that's my concern. That we are so far gone as a society that this is no longer possible.


    Parent

    I have been saying this (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:21:23 AM EST
    for a while.  Democracy takes work....it take time; it takes participation.

    Back in 2000, I was appalled when the media kept pushing the "W is the kind of guy you could have a beer with..."......and the "Gore's sighs...the intellectual boredom"......not because the media pushed that crap..but because citizens bought it.

    Voting for a president should NOT be like voting for American Idol.   And yet it was worse than ever in the democratic primary.  What happened proved to me that the democratic party mentality is no better than the republican party mentality.  Sad and frustrating.

    Parent

    But neither choice solves your problem. (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by Shainzona on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:03:02 AM EST
    Both POTUS candidates are poor quality.  Perhaps you have forgotten the Dem primary where a "personality" won over experience.

    And now we have personality against personality.

    So America will lose no matter what.

    Parent

    Well, both Clintons connect on all the issues.... (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by sallywally on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:09:07 AM EST
    yes, we may need to somehow communicate that we want these better conversations, etc., but the truth is that both Clintons could connect with both the critical thinking crowd and the "low information" voters - and if the many who were in the tank for Obama had used their critical thinking skills, they'd have known that Clinton was more progressive than Obama on every critical issue, and that the slamming of the Clinton years was a bunch of hooey.

    I hope now that Obama is getting the Clintons to do more and reversing himself on the 527s it won't be too late. Early voting in Ohio, where I live, starts Sept. 30. Obama could have lost our state well before the election itself.

    Parent

    Sorry to disagree, but James Earl Carter was... (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by rvail136 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:48:15 PM EST
    ...the worst President in recent memory.  Had he not sold out the Shah of Iran, or in the least, took a far firmer line with post revolutionary Iran, we would NOT have the problems in the middle east that we have today.

    His fiscal policies created the highest rate of inflation since the Depression.  

    My biggest fear of Obama is that he will be a reprise of Mr. Carter...Hillary at least understands the precept of the first great progressive president, "Speak softly and carry a big stick."  She would have made a far better candidate than Obama is.

    Parent

    Bill's a better person than I am (5.00 / 13) (#4)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:50:19 AM EST
    in fact, I have to admire Bill and Hillary both.  After the way the DNC has treated them, after the way the Obama campaign surrogates implied to the nation that Bill and Hillary were racists, the fact that they put democracy and country first, amazes me.

    I admit it. I am still angry.  I cannot imagine anything more hurtful, more painful than an entire nation being told you are a low life racist when, in fact, you spent a lifetime working on issues and legistlation that would improve the lives of people in minority communities.

    But I am glad they are doing it.  Not that it will change the hate mongers on some left blogs. But their campaigning will show up the likes of Dean, Pelosi and the DNC for the jerks they are.

    Politics is what it is (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:52:34 AM EST
    And if you want to think about it in terms of what is best for Bill and Hillary personally - campaigning hard for Obama is what is best for them.

    They should welcome the opportunity to do all they can to help Obama win.

    Remember, Hillary will run for President again, in 4 years or 8. She needs to recapture the good will of all Democrats.

    Parent

    Absolutely. (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by rooge04 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:00:21 AM EST
    Obama supporters now proclaim their love for Bill and Hillary once more. It's a good thing. It's the best interest of both of them to campaign for him. And as hard as they have been doing it for him thus far (well Hillary mostly) is just right. No one can blame them for "losing" it for him. That narrative of "If Obama loses, it's HRC's fault" is fast waning IMO and I don't see it bandied about much anymore.  Anyone that would try and pass that reasoning off these days just comes off looking the fool.

    Parent
    No I am not thinking about (5.00 / 8) (#11)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:07:41 AM EST
    what is best for Bill and Hillary.

    I simply was expressing my feelings. I remain angry and frustrated. And I admire that they can go forward.  If you believe they are doing it for themselves and not for democracy, fine.  I don't know either personally and therefore I cannot absolutely say why they are able to overcome it.

    I can go as far as saying I will vote for Obama/Biden because I am not going to vote against my own self interest.  

    I respectfully disagree that Hillary needs to recapture the good will of all of democrats.  Those democrats who were disparaging her long before the primary became just Obama vs Clinton, will never respect the Clintons.  They were using right wing talking points from the 90s early on.
    They are the so called "independents, the so called "see the light to become a democrat" types like Arianna who spent much of the 90s going on television to trash Bill and Hillary while hanging out with Newt and friends.  Their hatred of the Clintons goes beyond politics and they used their money to push lies and hate.

    I don't know what Hillary will do in 2012.  I really don't.  Or even 2016.  I don't know if I will live that long. I can only react to what I saw happen in this election.

    Parent

    what bothers me most (5.00 / 9) (#15)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:19:53 AM EST
    is the many talking head pundits who cannot get over it and still insist that the Clintons are only doing this for their own self interest.  They cannot in any way ever acknowledge that the Clintons might REALLY want Obama, as a democrat, to win the election.

    With no first hand knowledge at all these pundits REFUSE to take the Clintons at their word that they want Obama to win for the sake of the country's future.

    Parent

    The talking heads, and most especially (5.00 / 6) (#20)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:32:56 AM EST
    the millionaire pundit boys of MSNBC, cannot get past their Clinton hate.  I believe a lot of it is guilt.  Men like Matthews (as well as Russert) made their careers on trashing the Clintons in the most personal and nasty way.  Their desire to be "locker room" popular with the crass comments on the Clintons, with their tainting of Gore as the "bathtub ring for the Clintons" helped put W into office.  

    By 2003, they knew they had blood on their hands.  As well, Bill and Hillary did not, would not trust them and kept their distance (can anyone blame the Clintons for not feeling comfortable being around people who disparaged them and their daughter in the most personally ugly way?).
    It was their own guilt, yet they could not contain their resentment and need to blame the Clintons instead of themselves because the public in the end, told people like Matthews and Russert they went too far.  Bill leaves office with a higher approval rating and that reflected badly on them.

    These same jerks who drooled over W, drooled over McCain and over Obama while treating Hillary in the most offensive ways, are now trying to give themselves credibility.  They are reeling because people have been screaming out about their blatant sexism and bias.  NOW, who do they blame again?  The Clintons.  They used sexism against Hillary, they spun out of context lies to support the "Clintons are racist" meme.  People saw through it.  NOW when there is no sexism, and there is racism, they are like the boys who cried wolf.  They have lost any credibility.....and are whining that the public sees through them.

     Amazingly sick and perverted but it's the truth.

    Parent

    When I tuned in to punditville (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by DFLer on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:02:05 AM EST
    trying to avoid discussions of lipstick, I did hear some "guests" saying that Hillary wasn't doing enough. Anecdotal only...no other info.

    Parent
    The Two Aren't Mutually Exclusive (none / 0) (#34)
    by daring grace on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:28:10 AM EST
    The Clintons campaigning for Obama can be doing it for both reasons.

    When I've suggested here it is in their own interests to support Senator Obama it has been in response to some who see Senator Clinton in particular being 'forced' to do something she doesn't want to do. And I find that silly.

    I take them at their word, and even if they were making it up, who cares, right? I'm glad they're out there lending their considerable talents to the campaign.

    Parent

    The first thing he will owe (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:42:46 AM EST
    her and her supporters is to dump Dean, Brazille and the DNC club that worked to make sure Clinton was trashed and beaten.  But he owes them too.
    I think the rift in this party will grow wider after November.

    Parent
    If, by some miracle, we win (none / 0) (#137)
    by Coral on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:21:35 PM EST
    and win big ... then it will all be water under the bridge.

    Parent
    It won't be for me (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:33:57 PM EST
    nor will it be for most women I know.  Dean and the DNC allowed sexism to be acceptable.  To me that is not a liberal or progressive value.  I do not know one woman in my world who feels it will be water under the bridge.  They angry as hell and will be heard.

    Parent
    but see, even you (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:53:21 AM EST
    who supports them still feels the need to add the disclaimers in your statement.

    What's wrong with just saying....

    I take them at their word.

    and end your thought right there.


    Parent

    Nothing Wrong With Stopping There (none / 0) (#109)
    by daring grace on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:09:29 AM EST
    with the phrase I take them at their word.

    The next statement would be directed at those who do NOT take them that way. To me, their motives are irrelevant. Their support is valuable. That's enough for me.

    Parent

    that's the first mistake (5.00 / 9) (#57)
    by ccpup on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:53:40 AM EST
    To believe that Obama will repay either Clinton in any way is to ignore the history he has of throwing people under the bus once he's used them to get where we wants to go.

    If he DOES win (which I still find doubtful) and it's in part due to the efforts of the Clintons, come Inauguration Day, the storyline will have magically changed back to How Awesome Obama Is and What An Amazing Achievement For HIM to Win the Presidency.  There will be little acknowledgment of the efforts of the Clintons or anyone else to get him where he so desperately wants to be.

    And, Obama being Obama, he will bask in the glow of Making History and conveniently forget he didn't get there by himself.

    I strongly doubt Hillary and Bill will be given anything other than a "Thank you".  Which is why I suspect they're not going to invest any serious political capital in getting him elected.  They'll do just enough, but no more.

    This is Obama's race to win or lose.  If he needs Bill to travel the bleedin' country explaining his economic plan -- 'cause Obama can't sell it or doesn't know it --, then Obama shouldn't be President.

    Parent

    the payoff (none / 0) (#136)
    by AlSmith on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:16:48 PM EST

    I think the Clintons are enslaved to her primary debt that Obama is using to manipulate them.

    $11M is the Clintons own money, which is serious money if its your own.

    Since Obama can write a check, they pretty much have to play ball.

    Parent

    Obama can't write a check (none / 0) (#168)
    by democrattotheend on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:50:58 PM EST
    He can't legally pay off her debt. He can only encourage his donors to give to her. He could probably push them harder, but he can't legally give her more than the individual $2,300 contribution, which he and Michelle have already done.

    Parent
    I know. (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by mm on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:46:53 AM EST
    I don't know what Hillary will do in 2012.  I really don't.  Or even 2016.

    Anyone who tries to tell you that Senator Clinton has another run at the Presidency in her future is simply, as they say, blowing smoke up your nether regions.  And it only serves to diminish the pure selfless course she has chosen.

    Parent

    She will be an OLD WOMAN... (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Shainzona on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:11:12 AM EST
    in 2016 - if you think she got hacked to death by the blogger boyz this year, wait until then.  

    They hated her now - they will detest her in 2016.

    Parent

    Personally, I think Obama will lose (none / 0) (#85)
    by Jellabean on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:14:55 AM EST
    And Hillary will win in 2012. She will be set up perfectly. I don't think McCain will be a popular president. He won't be exactly like Bush, but he will be enough like him that in 2012 people will want a change. I think Hillary will be "owed" by the party and people will say, ok, now she gets her chance. And I think she'll win. She only needs 51%. I think she's win in a hard fought campaign, but she will win. Who cares what the blogger boys do. They won't have Obama to root for, so they be the ones who will have to get in line this time. It's only fair.

    Parent
    If Obama loses (none / 0) (#108)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:57:18 AM EST
    Palin will be in the White House.  Maybe McCain won't run for a second term and Palin will be at the top of the ticket in 2012.  And if Bush could beat (or be close enough to steal the election from) Gore and then Kerry why do you think the people will elect Clinton over Palin.  If you think the evangelical right is out in force now, wait until she is at the top of the ticket.

    And, I think it is silly to predict what will happen in 2012, but I'm playing your game.

    Parent

    Hillary would beat Palin (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by stefystef on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:20:14 AM EST
    hands down if it came to a showdown in 2012.

    Parent
    Not so sure (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:12:45 PM EST
    Hillary is a thousand times better than Palin but that doesn't always translate into votes.  

    Parent
    frontrunner (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by AlSmith on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:32:05 PM EST

    Lets leave Palin out of this. I dont expect McCain to run in 2012 so Palin is probably set up. By then she may be a juggernaut or damaged we have no way of knowing so why speculate.

    Hillary is clearly the Democratic front runner. Obama would have lost "the most winnable election" and while he probably has a much higher floor of support than Kerry, losers dont play well. Look at how much rehab Gore has needed.

    Who else would their be? Pelosi? Dean? Reed? All DOA. Edwards? Leiberman is gone. Gore for Gods' sake!? There are no hold overs.  

    Sure they might be a "new fresh faces" movement, but in reality the field is open. The only established players would be Biden and Clinton. I hope Biden gets a Bentson like bounce out of this nomination, but I think the advantage is still HRC.

    Parent

    Why does she need to recapture anything? (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by myiq2xu on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:55:22 AM EST
    How did she lose the goodwill of any Democrats?

    Parent
    Agree but - She never had the goodwill (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by fercryingoutloud on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:31:27 AM EST
    of many Democrats anyway, especially on the blogs so what is there to recapture? To say "recapture" is a false argument.

    The people who didn't and don't like her and support here are not going to give her or Bill any love for helping Obama. They are just using the both of them. If they help there is no upside for either of them. If they minimize their help they will b ridiculed. There is little upside.

    Parent

    She has the good will of half the Dems (none / 0) (#88)
    by sallywally on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:17:33 AM EST
    or more than half. And even Biden with his so-called "gaffe" said she might have been a better candidate.

    Why do you think Obama is asking Hillary and Bill to compaign for him? Why do you think he's now begging the 527s to come in and save him?

    Postpartisanship is over. The Keyser Soze rules are in effect now.

    Parent

    Cynicism is not going to win (5.00 / 10) (#27)
    by Cream City on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:13:30 AM EST
    for your media darling.  I have to say that this comment is a true turn-off and only reminds me of how the Clintons were so cynically used and abused by Obama.  And when he used and abused them, he did so to Clinton's supporters, too.  So this just brings back the primaries for me.  Better hope it doesn't do so for others, too.

    Parent
    Why is HRC in a position to need.... (5.00 / 7) (#75)
    by Shainzona on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:06:17 AM EST
    to recapture anything?  She didn't do anything wrong - she ran for POTUS on the Dem ticket and won more votes...and for that she has to "recapture" something?

    And BTD - you KNOW that if HRC runs for POTUS in 8 years all of the blogger boyz will go nuts at how OLD she is - so she will be not only a WOMAN, but an OLD WOMAN.

    Parent

    Bill Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by MichaelGale on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:58:22 AM EST
    One thought it gives me and is helpful is that Obama needs Bill Clinton. That says a lot for me.

    They can throw out he's doing it for the party, the party etc, etc. The party needs Bill Clinton and it feels a little like a Democratic Party again. I trust Clinton.

    Parent

    "She needs to recapture the good will of all (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by bridget on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:27:34 PM EST
    "She needs to recapture the good will of all Democrats."

    Oh she does now, does she? Which kind of Dems do you have in mind? Those Clinton haters who trashtalked since 1992 (liberal punditry and newspeople) or those who joined them later on the blogs long before Obama ran against HC in this primary. Or the disloyal Party Dems?

    IMO it should be the other way around. All those ill-willed Democrats should do their very best to recapture the good will of Hillary Clinton (and Bill Clinton as well) if they have an ounce of integrity left and if they really do want a Dem in the White House.

    Besides Obama should thank his lucky stars 24/7 that both Clintons do put country first. And that it was Hillary who was his rival candidate in this primary and not someone else. Someone with a lot less stature who could have cared less what happened to him and the country in the General Election. It wouldn't have been the first time. Cause Politics is what it is.

    Parent

    Not only that, but (none / 0) (#122)
    by coigue on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:55:53 AM EST
    an Obama white house will at least begin to clean up the mess of the last 8 years, whereas a McCain WH will continue and increase the mess.

    Parent
    A McCain WH will need a napping (none / 0) (#128)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:59:37 AM EST
    room.  I like McCain well enough as a person but don't tell me he isn't napping a bit these days!

    Parent
    Hey; so did JFK. (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:01:10 PM EST


    Parent
    You are so bad, that is what I luv about you (none / 0) (#133)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:09:30 PM EST
    I wonder if McCain will have napping attendants of the sort that JFK sometimes did?  They say that the person who naps gets more done during the overall day.  I am becoming a firm believer.

    Parent
    I was thinking of his "power naps." (none / 0) (#163)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 05:54:27 PM EST


    Parent
    Probably not (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by JAB on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:53:06 AM EST
    While I agree with your point, I fear that Kos, Huffy, etc will now start the choruses of "But Bill isn't doing enough!"

    Parent
    Those people (5.00 / 6) (#13)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:10:56 AM EST
    the so called "I used to be a republican but now I am more left than you are" will be shown some day to be the hypocrites they really are.   I have to believe that.  It has to happen because for people whose interest lies mainly in self and in their ability to become rich and powerful at the expense of others (like Arianna and kos), to be seen as liberal or progressive is just so wrong on so many levels and too depressing to accept.

    Parent
    you know... (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by coigue on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:57:06 AM EST
    there are still some people there who think that, but some of us who remember fondly the Clinton WH have felt safe to return there of late. The Clinton haters are not so prevalent now.

    Parent
    More Like Force Feeding (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Saul on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:00:06 AM EST
    Yes it's good but it is also bad.  Many Hilary supporters are just totally turned off when Hilary or Bill go out to support Obama.  They know the Clintons are only doing it as a party unification requirement and it just galvanizes the hatred toward Obama because of the terrible abuse of Clintons by the media, by the DNC and by Obama and his camp. Many Hialary supporters will vote for Obama by seeing the Clintons in support of Obama but many will not and those who will not can be the major difference on who wins the GE

    Really? (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by rooge04 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:00:51 AM EST
    It just makes me prouder and prouder of Bill and Hillary.  

    Parent
    Both can be true (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by lambert on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:03:27 AM EST
    These are not mutually exclusive propositions.

    Parent
    True. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by rooge04 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:07:51 AM EST
    I am very clearly like this: I will support the Democratic ticket and will always argue for the Democratic principles I believe in. I believe Obama and Biden are the baton-holders of those. However, I will never forget what the media and the Obama campaign did to Hillary and Bill's legacy.  

    Parent
    I won't. (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Shainzona on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:12:56 AM EST


    Parent
    Me either.... never ever ever, Amen (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by kelsweet on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:48:17 AM EST


    Parent
    Something can make you (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by tootired on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:22:46 AM EST
    "prouder and prouder of Bill and Hillary", but still not get Obama any votes. If Bill and Obama are on the stage together, and Bill says when Obama is your president, he will do x, y, and z, and Obama says that he will, I might think I had a small chance of seeing it happen. But if Bill is in Ohio and Obama is in PA, then anything Bill says Obama would do, I would take with a grain of salt. The problem for me is that "actions speak louder than words", and I don't see anything in Obama's record that says I should trust him. I want to vote for him, but he hasn't given me much to base that vote on other than he's Democrat, and sometimes I even question that. I hope they coordinate their campaigning to give it some real credibility.

    Parent
    Are you suggesting that (none / 0) (#19)
    by lilburro on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:31:57 AM EST
    there are Hillary voters that will vote for Obama only if the Clintons do not campaign for Obama?  I imagine this is a very small group.

    I'm not trying to discredit your feelings, but I think the good that comes out of the Clintons on the trail for Obama far outweighs the bad for all involved.  Party politics are not pretty, but I think the party politics of Bush-McCain are way uglier and more destructive:  McCain changed his stance on just about everything out of party politics/convenience.

    Parent

    The passions run extremely high this year (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Saul on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:43:31 AM EST
    more than any other election in history.  The numbers IMO are higher than people think.  Things were kind of settling then came the Palin incident.  Many Hilary supporters who were just settling down when Palin came into the picture and had their hearts ripped out from them.  It just opened the old wounds with  a little vinegar added to them.  

    Parent
    I wish you were in charge BTD (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by ruffian on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:28:39 AM EST
    Because instead of Clinton and Obama campaigning together in MI, OH, and PA, Clinton is coming alone to Florida. I'm flummoxed by that choice.  They must know something I don't about Ohio and Florida, meaning the former is locked up and the latter is winnable.

    Early voting starts in Ohio in 19 days.  That is where I would park both Clintons.

    I think FL (none / 0) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:52:05 AM EST
    is apparently gone for Obama. He's never polled well there.

    Parent
    Given the problems the Palin pick (none / 0) (#47)
    by JoeA on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:49:17 AM EST
    is causing the GOP in Florida amongst Jews especially I'm not sure you are correct.  

    Polling certainly doesn't seem to support it, Rasmussen had the race a tie at 48-48 as recently as 7th September, and other polls show mcCain up to 5-7 points ahead.  Hardly "gone" in my opinion.

    Parent

    Your (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:56:02 AM EST
    post is backing up what I'm saying. If the best poll for Obama shows it tied then he's not doing well. It's all good and well that Palin is causing problems with the Jewish vote but Obama has some huge problems of his own on that account. The Jewish vote alone won't be enough to put Obama over the top in FL. Kerry got that vote in 2004 and it wasn't enough.

    Parent
    Palin is a huge Isreal supporter (none / 0) (#63)
    by Jellabean on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:58:08 AM EST
    what Jewish problem?? An Israeli Filmmaker apparently made a documentary about Palin this year that is a propaganda film that makes her out to be pro-Israel as Golda Mier. He made a big deal over the fact that she had an Israeli flag on the wall. She addressed AIPAC last week and they swooned over her. Biden made some crack about AIPAC doesn't speak for Jews and caused a kerfluffle himself.

    And since when do Democratic Jews in Florida sway the election? I'm sure they voted en masse for Kerry and he lost by like 10 pts.

    Parent

    Huge Israel supporter? (none / 0) (#86)
    by JoeA on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:15:22 AM EST
    Really?  The McCain campaign were reduced to blowing up photos of her governors office to show a tiny Israel flag in the corner.  Maybe she supports Israel in an effort to speed along the rapture as much of the Christian right seem to.

    One of the most quoted lines from her convention speech was borrowed from a rabid anti semite (Westbrook Pfleger). link

    She sat through a talk in her church from the founder of "Jews for Jesus" a group committed to converting Jews to Christianity.

    There is plenty of commentary out there speculating that the Palin pick is treading on McCain's campaign efforts to make inroads into Obama's support amongst the traditionally democratic Jewish community.

    An example is Ed Koch who just came out for Obama in the last couple of Days, calling Palin "scary".  link

    Parent

    OK, fine you win (3.50 / 2) (#89)
    by Jellabean on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:18:30 AM EST
    The Jews in Florida hate Palin. So the Democrats will win Florida based on their support, which they always give to Democrats, just like Democrats won Florida in 2004.  


    Parent
    Didn't say any of that. (none / 0) (#93)
    by JoeA on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:21:28 AM EST
    I argue with a comment saying that Florida is effectively dead to Obama and he is wasting his time campaigning there, or having Bill Clinton campaign there . . .  and this suddenly means I'm saying 100% of jews will vote democrat/hate Palin and that Florida always votes for the Democratic ticket?

    Please.

    Parent

    nice debate tactic (none / 0) (#125)
    by coigue on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:58:31 AM EST
    someone disagrees with reasoning and you fall back on extreme sarcasm.

    Parent
    Also, Koch endorsed Bush in the last (none / 0) (#90)
    by JoeA on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:19:20 AM EST
    election and campaigned for him in 6 states including Florida.  As a "swing voting democrat" if he represents a movement of Jewish Democrats back to Obama from McCain then who knows what will happen.

    Parent
    I think Palin is offset by (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by smott on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:00:10 PM EST
    Obama's Farrakhan connection. That doesn't go unnoticed at temple any more than Buchanon's support of Palin.

    I think Obama may still be OK with most of the Jewish vote so he'll win say West Palm Beach.

    Miami/Dade/Talahhassee/everywhere else, not so much.

    I think it all comes down to OH.

    Again.

    Parent

    It's good (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:55:02 AM EST
    that the Clintons are trying but ultimately I don't think that it's going to matter much. I'm sure that Bill or Hillary showing up will produce a spike in Obama's numbers in some of these states but once they leave and it's about voting for Obama I don't expect the numbers to hold.

    In the end people are voting for Obama. He's going to have to convince the voters that he's up to the job not rely on the Clintons or anyone else to deliver votes for him.

    Your (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:41:14 AM EST
    thought processes are the reason we lose elections. We need to stand up for Bill. Fact of the matter is, Obama is poison in red states. He's polling worse than Kerry. Obama needs all the help he can get right now.

    Parent
    I don't think Bill will help (none / 0) (#44)
    by Jellabean on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:44:24 AM EST
    Hillary is the one who connected with working class people. Here's what Obama needs to do: He needs to campaign with her as an equal with Joe Biden. He needs to say, Hillary will be part of my administration, a big part. We're all campaigning together, me (Obama) Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton to combine to work for you and your issues. Make Hillary a partner in the ticket and he will regain women.

    Parent
    I know (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:51:39 AM EST
    you are trying but ultimately people are going to have to vote for Obama or not. Since he didn't pick her for the ticket, it seems kind of silly now to claim he wants her to be a part of his administration.

    Parent
    Well why not change strategy based on events? (none / 0) (#92)
    by Jellabean on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:21:21 AM EST
    Personally, I'd like to see Joe Biden develop a mysterious health problem and announce he's withdrawing from the race and Hillary replace him, then Biden miraculously recover and just say he's more comfortable staying in the Senate for now.

    If Hillary is on the ticket, Obama wins this election hands down. If she's not, I don't think he will. It's the Torricelli Option.

    Parent

    Biden is not pulling out (none / 0) (#141)
    by shoephone on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:49:57 PM EST
    And Hillary is not going to be the running mate. These fantasies are ridiculous.

    Parent
    In...Red...states... (none / 0) (#139)
    by Check077 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:43:54 PM EST
    Actually, if Bill could run again, he'll carry several red states...that kind of goodwill just does not go away. As a matter of fact, many republicans in Mississippi had began to think Bill as a necessary evil, and it is definitely transferable to Hillary.

    Now, Obama, I've heard a number of them--speaking with a subtle detestable reaction. As a matter of fact, many of them were sitting togehter at a cubicle discussing politics.

    Parent

    LOL: Red States.... (none / 0) (#144)
    by smott on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:03:40 PM EST
    ...who was the last Dem to win WV, VA, KY, LA, TN, MS, GA ?

    ....Um...somebody help me out here...My mind's a blank!!

    Parent

    Hmm (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:08:51 PM EST
    Bill Clinton, Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton, Bill Clinton, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, in that order.  I think.

    Parent
    God I hope we're not still worrying about... (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:20:41 AM EST
    ..the red states. Clinton is gold in Michigan, Ohio, and Florida. Let's shore those up first before we start giving a crap about Nebraska.

    Parent
    What is that I hear, a voice of reason? (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:40:32 AM EST
    How do swim around so well in all this distortion and irrational Clinton hate?

    Parent
    Clinton is poison in Red States (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:23:06 AM EST
    but Obama isn't huh?  Let us be very honest here about the prevailing racism that exists in deeply red states and perhaps then we can understand that a black man and a man who has fought for the rights of black people are both poison in Red States, duh!  Why do you think so much of the Red South hates Bill Clinton?  I live here now and I know so let me share, he failed to treat African Americans differently and in fact refused to.....wouldn't even frickin fake it after being born and raised to know better, and the reds down here hate him the most for that.

    Parent
    That's funny (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:17:03 PM EST
    Because during the primaries, Bill was sent to campaign for Hillary in small towns and rural communities - he did quite well and was certainly a factor in her margins of victories in these areas in states like OH and PA.

    I saw B. Clinton and one such event - audience almost entirely blue collar white voters.  And when he talked about economic issues (or any issue really) he did so in a way that made everyone nod their heads.  He made all the democratic points about how policies worked for working class but put it in everyday language.  It was fantastic.  

    I distinctly remember how he explained how we have a problem with China right now and we can't stand up to them the way Republicans think we can because they hold all our debt - he compared it to "waking up one more and going to the bank that holds your car loan and house loan and punching the bank manager in the nose."  it got a laugh and got the point across.

    Remember too that B. Clinton was the last democratic candidate in a general to do well among these folks.

    Parent

    So (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by sas on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:15:41 AM EST
    the weak Obama continues to hope the Clintons will come to his rescue.

    Sadly,since the DNC and Obama have thrown so many former Democrats under the bus, it will avail him naught.

    This train wreck is getting worse (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by goldberry on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:50:34 AM EST
    Check out these polls for projected Democrat gains in Congress.  I thought we were going to win big but the way things are going, we may actually end up losing seats.  
    Obama is being incredibly selfish for even running this year and the DNC should be sued for malpractice.  We may end up with one-party rule again.  
    When are they going to wake up and realize how much damage they've inflicted on their own party?  
    BTD, even you must acknowledge by now that something is seriously wrong.  Isn't the DNC being terribly irresponsible?  

    Parent
    The Clinton's will come to his rescue (5.00 / 5) (#111)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:15:26 AM EST
    In spite of how Clinton haters have always attempted to portray them, they have always cared about and fought for the party.  Obama could learn a few things from them while they are stumping for him. Will he though?  Who knows.

    Parent
    You are right (5.00 / 4) (#149)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:44:38 PM EST
    and that's the part that gets me angriest.
    The Clintons fought for the democratic party that was almost destroyed by the extreme far left who refused to vote for Humphrey and gave us Nixon.  Even their leaders now, forty years later, admit how stupid that was.  And then we had Ted Kennedy who made it impossible for Carter to win.....and started splitting the party.

    And then there are the modern day sanctimonious progressive hypocrites of the blogs; the ones worshipping Ted Kennedy while disaparaging Bill over Bill's indiscretions.  The ones who speak as if Ronald Reagan was admirable even though he did, in the view of many, more to hurt the middle class than George W.  

    These (mostly) young voters, who think of themselves as liberals, have spewed every right wing hate point of the 90s right wing, in the primary.  They are as closed minded as it gets and then they are shocked when those of us who worked for democrats since 1968 get disgusted with them and their so called progressive mentality.  In my view, a lot of them were hate mongering every bit as much as the right does.

    Parent

    It is tough out there, no doubt about it (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:58:23 PM EST
    The Clintons are pols but they do seem to geniunely care about mankind as well......a really strange mix these days.  When taking into consideration all the work Clinton's foundation is doing though, and insisting on putting it in Harlem......he's the man.  I think when you are able to care about people first you can organize for the greater good much better in spite of your giant ego which both Clintons and both Obamas have.  Putting your ego aside though when the time calls for it and using all that energy for the good of the people is what needs to happen.  I'm sure there was some hurt bitter feelings but the Clintons have always seemed to be able to get beyond those sort of things, they wouldn't have made it this far if they couldn't.  So forward we move dragging the hating and opinionated and fixated, and the kicking and screaming, sometimes that is what leadership is on its less glamorous days.  Beauty is pain....this is the pain part.  The beauty of a fully functional healed Democratic party though is going to be much much prettier than the newest rockstar, that's just fact.  Now we just have to get there.

    Parent
    Huh. (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by oldpro on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:59:58 AM EST
    You think Madeline Albright slept with Bill to get her job?  How about Janet Reno?

    Do you even know the difference between a camp follower/celebrity worshipper and someone who is suffering sexual harassment?

    You're way off base on this one and the evidence doesn't support your view in this case.

    The C Factor (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:02:45 AM EST
    Al Gore ran away from the Clintons, and he lost. I always thought that was a pivotal mistake on Gore's part, much as I supported him.

    Big Dog and Hillary should be out there slinging for the Democratic Party. Not necessarily Obama.

    Gore won. (none / 0) (#130)
    by coigue on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:00:08 PM EST
    (But he would be in the WH if Bill had been utilized)

    Parent
    Obama and Bill (5.00 / 8) (#74)
    by piezo on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:05:25 AM EST
    He's lucky Bill is even willing to talk to him let alone campaign for him.

    I'm glad to see this. (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by lucky leftie on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:17:10 AM EST
    The Obama campaign and some of then party leadership seemed determined not just to beat Hillary, but to purge the party of the Clinton's and their influence, to establish themselves as the future of the democratic party.  Stupid, stupid, stupid.  Have these people forgotten what it was like when Gingrich and his ilk were at the height of their influence?  It was the Clintons who beat them back.  NO ONE has taken more crap from the GOP than these two, and they're still standing.  No wonder the repubs hate them.  

    They are among our few success stories of the past 2 decades.  The party needs them, and I hope they realize that now.    

    Oh, now Obama respects the Clintons? (5.00 / 4) (#112)
    by stefystef on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:16:38 AM EST
    Of course Bill is going to campaign for him.  Bill never said he wouldn't.  But Obama, his camp and many in the DNC have humiliated Bill Cilnton and his presidency in order to put their candidate- Obama- in this position.

    Bill is a better man than most give him credit for.

    And it's still Obama's race to lose.

    OK. (none / 0) (#126)
    by coigue on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:59:09 AM EST
    time to move on.

    Nothing to see here.

    Parent

    You gotta love it... (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 04:27:16 PM EST
    Matthews and his CDS is BACK....
    According to Chris Matthews and Gene Robinson (today)
    when are those Clintons going to get out there and do things FOR OBAMA.  What's the problem?  Matthews has been keeping his CDS under raps for a while (probably with all the complaints about his blatant sexism he was told he had to lay off the Clinton bashing).  And Robinson?  Clearly the man believe the Clintons are racists who do not want to help.
    Then Matthews has some bozo from Politico on with them and they all giggled when the guy says "Obama needs to soothe the Clinton egos...he needs them."

    So here it is again.  The MSNBO network again is playing the BLAME THE CLINTONS.
    Now it's THEIR job to get Obama elected and if they do not do enough and Obama fails it is THEIR fault.

    And people here wonder why Hillary supporters are not "getting over it?"

    Why do people watch those (none / 0) (#160)
    by Fabian on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 05:14:40 PM EST
    h@cks?  (or whatever we call hopelessly biased, untrustworthy pundits now)

    Parent
    Normally I don't (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 06:57:56 PM EST
    I quit last year because of Matthews sexism.  And usually I am working. BUT, today because so much of the news was reliving 9/11, I chose to tune in to some political dialogue thinking it would mostly be about that.  

    I should have turned it off as soon as Matthews started but I had to hear it for myself....the jerk is still a sexist pig with CDS and always will be.

    Parent

    I just watched (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Bluesage on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 04:28:25 PM EST
    A clip of Bill and Obama answering some questions after their meeting and I felt that both of them looked uncomfortable.  Bill said he would be going out later in the month after his global initiative is done and Obama awkwardly said "Gonna put him to work".  I personally think that every time Bill or Hillary appear on any stage they overshadow Obama and make him look like the lesser candidate.  And compared to both Bill and Hillary, he is.  So this is kind of a double-edged sword and could help or could hurt.  Obama needs to be able to sell himself to the voters and he can't seem to do that.  And he really doesn't seem to want to do the work.

    I don't think they looked uncomfortable (none / 0) (#161)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 05:14:46 PM EST
    with each other. I think they looked uncomfortable with a press looking for "body language" and any opening to declare the "clintons vs obama" is still on.  Read my post above yours to see how Matthews and Robinson are spinning it already.

    Both the Clintons and the Obamas know the press wants a fight....and anything they say or do will be spun.  To me their discomfort was about knowing the press was going to spin them no matter what...

    Parent

    Now I swing back to (none / 0) (#162)
    by Fabian on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 05:17:33 PM EST
    my feeling that Obama would prefer to have nothing to do with the Clintons.  Why not?  He's Democrat, they are Democrats.  

    Parent
    Note: dates off the calendar (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Donna Z on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 06:46:05 PM EST
    The Clinton Global Initiative will be meeting 9/23-26. That is the week after next, and Clinton will not be traveling during that time.

    Just saying.

    I think that Clinton's time may not be as flexible as we are proposing.

    I would (none / 0) (#1)
    by rooge04 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:26:03 AM EST
    die for tickets to see Bill!!! Obama, too, I guess. ;)

    I saw Bill speak in Seattle a couple of years ago (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by shoephone on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:00:17 PM EST
    One thing that stuck with me is that, though he had prepared notes, he did not refer to them even once! He seemed to speak completely extemporaneously. It was masterful. I hope he is kicking Obama's a$$ into gear right this minute. A tutorial from Bill is not to be sniffed at.  

    Parent
    Where's Hillary? (none / 0) (#53)
    by Semanticleo on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:51:52 AM EST
    "If I were running Obama's campaign, I would have Obama campaign with Bill Clinton next week in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan for a few days."

    It sure would be nice if two females (Hill and Palin) were seen goin' toe-to-toe.  It would
    solidify Hill's support for the Democratic Candidate and the 'sexism' canard would disappear.

    There is not much media coverage that I can see of Hillary's public persona.

    Hillary doesn't want to attack Palin (none / 0) (#59)
    by JoeA on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:54:29 AM EST
    and it's not clear that Obama would want her to either.  

    Parent
    Whether he wants her to (5.00 / 7) (#98)
    by oldpro on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:25:20 AM EST
    or not...she's not going to do it.

    Attacking Palin is stupid.

    Attack McCain.  Attack Republicans.

    Hil and Bill will do that.  No doubt Joe is off somewhere in PA doing that.

    Obama, however, is foolishly caught in the Palin net and hasn't yet learned how to connect with Clinton 'holdouts'...mainly Independents who voted for her but won't, it appears, transfer that support to him...and for lots of reasons.  Trust seems to be a big factor.

    Parent

    You know what? (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:44:03 AM EST
    You're starting to sound like an oldpro at this.

    Parent
    too distracting. (none / 0) (#131)
    by coigue on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:01:04 PM EST


    Parent
    The issue isn't the 10 post limit (none / 0) (#62)
    by JoeA on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:57:19 AM EST
    for new commenters,  it's the 4 post limit for posters advocating the McCain-Palin ticket.  You are clearly trolling and would seem to me to be covered by the 4 comment limit.

    well (none / 0) (#81)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:11:34 AM EST
    Florida, Florida, Florida.

    OF COURSE, Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#95)
    by kenosharick on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:23:06 AM EST
    will work for the Dem ticket. Anyone who thought otherwise is politically ignorant. It is what a good Democrat does.

    If I were running Obama's campaign (none / 0) (#110)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:12:54 AM EST
    I might hit Colorado with Bill too.  I might just leave him there for a little while as well, to speak a bit for me in my absence.

    Connecting... (none / 0) (#135)
    by S on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:16:34 PM EST
    the bottom line is TRUST...people will connect if they think and/or believe they can TRUST someone...

    You use right wing (none / 0) (#150)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:46:08 PM EST
    tabloid speak.  What did you expect?

    If you are a true Hillary supporter then (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 05:12:14 PM EST
    you should respect her and her privacy.  You don't.  You have used every tabloid lie about Bill ever written.  

    I have women friends who have married men I don't care for. But I respect them and their choices. I feel the same about Hillary.  As long as you continue to use the kind of filth and spin the right wing used about Bill and Hillary's PRIVATE life, I will never believe you either support or respect Senator Clinton.

    Parent

    Obama: Bill Clinton Will Campaign For Me | 124 comments (124 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment